- 0 Posts
- 52 Comments
LOL, he just told me that he was too busy with his life to waste time on a, “troll” like me. I guess he meant he was too busy arguing with you.
LOL, you waited a full 24 hours to reply, “Yawn.” If you weren’t so thirsty for getting the last word in, we wouldn’t be talking right now.
Wow. So witty and insightful. And it only took you 24 hours to come up with it. Amazing.
I’m very curious to see how all this whining plays with his fan boys. Doesn’t seem very based or chad or whatever the fucking incel children are saying these days.
1- If Democrats had voted against all Republican bills, we’d be in a shutdown right now.
2- Booker’s filibuster is good. There were also many, many options available to Democrats early in the confirmation process that they chose not to take. For example, if they demanded unanimous consent on every procedure, a roll call roll vote would be required to move anything forward. They could file deleterious motions constantly to slow everything down. McConnell successfully used these tactics just a few months ago to force Schumer cut a deal on judicial appointments at the end of the last Congress.
3- The suits are being brought by Democratic Attorneys General, who have been killing it. They remember how dangerous Trump was and prepared accordingly. The national Democrats, however, clearly had no plan other than, “Kamala will win,” and didn’t adapt at all in the months between the election and the inauguration.
Chuck Schumer is the poster boy for this shortsightedness. The only possible explanation for his actions on the budget bill is that he assumed at least a few House Republicans would defect and the bill wouldn’t reach the Senate. When that didn’t happen, he had to suddenly decided between funding the government, which would a terrible move since (aside from being an awful bill) every House Democrat had just stuck their neck out to try to shoot it down, or defunding the government, which had its own risks, but it’s own benefits as well. Not only did he make the wrong choice, but he made it so abruptly he threw his entire party into chaos.
4- All of this is indicative of a party that is working from an out of date playbook that is hopeless obsolete in the face of fascism. Schumer and James Carvil started the term by telling Democrats to lay low and wait for Trump to screw up. Jefferies was advocating for bipartisanship for the fiest two months of the administration. The general consensus is that the legislative branch is completely helpless, and they simply need to wait for the courts to save us.
None of this will work. The Trump administration’s fuck-ups don’t matter if they’re not planning on holding free and fair elections. Bipartisanship has been dead for almost 20 years. Court rulings won’t save us; Trump is already defying court orders, and the Supreme Court has been pack with regime loyalists. Some Senators, like Booker, seem to be waking up to these realities, but the entire Democratic party needs to be looking to every single opportunity to slow and obstruct the Trump regime, and the leadership is not doing that.
Defeating the Trump administration will require widespread public mobilization and and an opposition party that’s ready to play hardball. The Democratiic leadership seems to content with only doing the first half, and fundraising in lieu of opposition. That’s going to get us all killed.
Name one moment in history where abstaining from the bare mimimim to avoid catastrophic consequences results in a net gain.
Name a point where I said abstaining from voting was good. My point wasn’t that protest voting was good. It was that you could make the exact opposite point (with a lot fewer words) using your exact logic. Which means it’s not a good point.
I ask this because you’re trying to make this party thing where I’d title paring [you mean “try paying,” maybe?] attention and reading for context- you’ll see clearly that It’s an ACTION thing.
Again, fine, let’s make it an action thing. If the protest voters were so necessary to Harris’ election, why didn’t she take any actions to win them over? That was incredibly irresponsible of her.
Are you beginning to see how all your arguments can be flipped just as easily to place the blame on the candidate instead of the voters? Do you think maybe that’s because, even though you’ve convinced yourself that what your saying is cold, hard logic, your actually just screaming your opinions at people?
For the record, I voted for Harris out of harm reduction, and I wish she’d won. However, I believe that it is a candidates job to win an election, not the voters job to get them elected. If there was a significant contingent of voters withholding their vote, I think that candidate must have been doing a shitty job.
Interesting that you went to progressives so quickly though. Especially since I never even mentioned the word.
That says a LOT.
Yeah, it says I saw more than 2 minutes of political coverage in 2024, so I knew that Harris wasn’t getting criticism for being too progressive. Grow up.
I mean, I tend to believe that they’re actually just a truly incompetent, cowardly bunch that are too afraid to fight and too stupid to realize that a party can’t simultaneously serve a working-class base and billionaire donors. That being said, I’ve been much more open to the controlled opposition theory since Schumer caved on the budget for no conceivable reason.
Not that I should even have to debate this, since my my source is the Pew Research Center and yours is, “most people I know,” but that’s a blatant misrepresentation of the methodology. The survey uses data from a group of randomly selected panelists, not self-reported post-election surveys.
The American Trends Panel (ATP), created by Pew Research Center, is a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. Panelists participate via self-administered web surveys. …The ATP was created in 2014, with the first cohort of panelists invited to join the panel at the end of a large, national, landline and cellphone random-digit-dial survey that was conducted in both English and Spanish. Two additional recruitments were conducted using the same method in 2015 and 2017, respectively. Across these three surveys, a total of 19,718 adults were invited to join the ATP, of whom 9,942 (50%) agreed to participate.
The only reference to self-reporting I found was people self-reporting whether or not they voted, and even then, that was independently verified. I’m pretty sure you clicked the first link you saw, scrolled down until you found this paragraph, and didn’t read it very carefully:
Voter turnout and vote choice in the 2020 election is based on two different sources. First, self-reports of candidate choice were collected immediately after the general election in November 2020 (ATP W78). Secondly, ATP panelists were matched to commercial voter file databases to verify that they had indeed voted in the election. For more details, see “Behind Biden’s 2020 Victory.”
Also, if Bernie’s failure to win the Democratic primary proves progressives don’t vote, then it stands to reason that Clinton and Harris’ defeat proves that moderates don’t vote either, right? I mean, it seems stupid to me to make broad, sweeping generalizations about voter behavior over something that has as many variables as an election, but if that’s what you want to do, then you must concede that Harris and Clinton prove that moderates don’t vote.
Literally the opposite is true. People on the far-left and far-right are much more likely to vote than people in the middle.
Yup, it was not lost on me that this was essentially Eco’s 8th feature of fascism. Not that the Democrats are fascists; they don’t match most of the other features, especially 6 (I don’t think it’d ever occurred to them to appeal to anyone’s frustrations), but it seems liberals have at least borrowed this rhetorical attack to punch left.
This is just a long-winded, inverted version of the aphorism about liberals’ paradoxical view of progressives; they’re a small, niche group, and the Democrats shouldn’t try to appease them because they’ll just alienate mainstream voters by courting this insignificant block of voters. However, progressives are somehow also a large, powerful cabal that can be blamed for every major Democratic loss.
I guess I just want to say “in conclusion” that the vast majority of voters that didn’t vote were giving you your Starbucks or your Taco Bell.
This is a very clear and succinct description of something I’ve been struggling to articulate for years. Affluent liberals can tell their boss they’re taking a long lunch to vote, and they don’t understand why shift workers don’t do the same.
Everything you just said is factually incorrect. Gaetz didn’t even have a confirmation. He gave up the nomination before confirmation hearings could start.
Also, you genuinely need to look up, “unanimous consent.” It’s a procedural method the Senate uses to speed up votes; if just one Democrat refuses to give unanimous consent to a vote, the Senate is forced to take a roll call vote and open the floor up to debate. It’s one of the many procedural hurdles Democrats could be using to block Trump’s agenda if they had the willpower.
Removed by mod